Journal of East-West Thought EURO-MULTICULTURALISM AND TOLERATION Sune Lægaard I. Introduction Multiculturalism has for several decades been an unavoidable term in discussions about social developments in modern societies. The increasing diversity of all societies is an incontrovertible fact. This has led to extensive discussions about all the issues this raises – both in terms of new possibilities and opportunities, but mainly in terms of the problems, threats, risks and challenges posed by the increased presence of people of different backgrounds side by side in the same society. While this phenomenon is not new – the idea of a completely homogenous society is most probably a fiction which very few historical societies have ever realised or even approximated – it is generally accepted that diversity has recently increased due to globalisation and migration. This has occurred in a context with increased awareness, public scrutiny and politicisation of diversity. Simultaneously, the political human rights context now rules out traditional ways of ignoring or oppressing diversity and rather provides an arena for claims of accommodation, and a normative background of ideas providing support for such claims. The term “multiculturalism” has since the 60s and 70s risen to prominence as a label for both diversity itself and for the social and political responses to it. But due to the high degree of politicisation of all issues having to do with diversity, the word “multiculturalism” is arguably often more a category of political practice than an analytical category with a clear theoretical meaning (Brubaker and Cooper, 2000) – to some, multiculturalism is simply a label for dangerous and subversive social tendencies to be avoided and combatted at all costs, to others multiculturalism signal a stand against xenophobia and an expression of a progressive attitude. The use of the term in academic discussions therefore requires careful consideration of what the underlying concepts really are and explicit definitions of how the term is used in particular cases. But once you engage in this sort of exercise, it becomes apparent that, even in academic and theoretical contexts, there are different understandings of multiculturalism at play and that some of these are often not well captured by generally accepted and reiterated definitions of multiculturalism. In this paper I will show this with respect to the understanding of multiculturalism in a European context. My claim will be that the underlying concept of multiculturalism in many European discussions is different from that made prominent by the classic cases, e.g. in Canada, that have functioned as paradigm cases which the most prominent theories of multiculturalism have been tailored to fit and justify. Hence my proposal that we should be aware of the existence of what I propose to call “Euro-multiculturalism”, which both denotes a) a different object of debates, Dr. SUNE LÆGAARD, Associate Professor in Philosophy and Science Studies, Department of Culture and Identity, Roskilde University.
EURO-MULTICULTURALISM AND TOLERATION
Mar 17, 2023
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Sune Lægaard
I. Introduction
Multiculturalism has for several decades been an unavoidable term in discussions
about social developments in modern societies. The increasing diversity of all
societies is an incontrovertible fact. This has led to extensive discussions about all the
issues this raises – both in terms of new possibilities and opportunities, but mainly in
terms of the problems, threats, risks and challenges posed by the increased presence
of people of different backgrounds side by side in the same society. While this
phenomenon is not new – the idea of a completely homogenous society is most
probably a fiction which very few historical societies have ever realised or even
approximated – it is generally accepted that diversity has recently increased due to
globalisation and migration. This has occurred in a context with increased awareness,
public scrutiny and politicisation of diversity. Simultaneously, the political human
rights context now rules out traditional ways of ignoring or oppressing diversity and
rather provides an arena for claims of accommodation, and a normative background
of ideas providing support for such claims.
The term “multiculturalism” has since the 60s and 70s risen to prominence as a
label for both diversity itself and for the social and political responses to it. But due to
the high degree of politicisation of all issues having to do with diversity, the word
“multiculturalism” is arguably often more a category of political practice than an
analytical category with a clear theoretical meaning (Brubaker and Cooper, 2000) – to
some, multiculturalism is simply a label for dangerous and subversive social
tendencies to be avoided and combatted at all costs, to others multiculturalism signal
a stand against xenophobia and an expression of a progressive attitude. The use of the
term in academic discussions therefore requires careful consideration of what the
underlying concepts really are and explicit definitions of how the term is used in
particular cases. But once you engage in this sort of exercise, it becomes apparent that,
even in academic and theoretical contexts, there are different understandings of
multiculturalism at play and that some of these are often not well captured by
generally accepted and reiterated definitions of multiculturalism.
In this paper I will show this with respect to the understanding of
multiculturalism in a European context. My claim will be that the underlying concept
of multiculturalism in many European discussions is different from that made
prominent by the classic cases, e.g. in Canada, that have functioned as paradigm cases
which the most prominent theories of multiculturalism have been tailored to fit and
justify. Hence my proposal that we should be aware of the existence of what I propose
to call “Euro-multiculturalism”, which both denotes a) a different object of debates,
Dr. SUNE LÆGAARD, Associate Professor in Philosophy and Science Studies,
Department of Culture and Identity, Roskilde University.
38 SUNE LÆGAARD
Journal of East-West Thought
i.e. the kind of diversity that multiculturalism is about, b) a different definition of
what counts as multiculturalism policy responses to this diversity, and c) a different
normative background explaining what is at stake in European multiculturalism
controversies. Briefly, my suggestion is that Euro-multiculturalism is a) about mainly
immigrant religious minorities rather than indigenous or national minorities defined
in mainly cultural or linguistic terms; b) does not for the most part consist in special
group-differentiated rights or forms of recognition going beyond established liberal
rights, but rather is concerned with the interpretation and application of standard
liberal rights and rules to cases involving this new diversity; and c) should be
understood as premised on an underlying discussion about the meaning of liberalism
rather than as a debate about normative commitments fundamentally different from
liberalism. 1 I will illustrate these points and provide some arguments for them. But most of
this paper will consider some possible objections to my proposed understanding of
Euro-multiculturalism, namely a) that it over-inclusive in the sense that it includes
religion as a central category and thereby neglects important differences between
religion and culture, and b) that it is under-inclusive in the sense that it collapses
multiculturalism into standard liberal political theory and fails to explain what is
distinctive about multiculturalism. Roughly my answer to these objections will be that
they are premised on a specific understanding of multiculturalism that both
misunderstands the internal logic of many classical forms of multiculturalism and
fails to capture what goes under the name of multiculturalism in a European context.
Multiculturalism is about diversity and is highly politicised in the sense that the
diversity in question generates much controversy and opposition. This combination
makes salient the other concept in the title of the paper, namely toleration. There are
many discussions of toleration and multiculturalism at the general conceptual level,
where it is often argued that multiculturalism as a response to diversity is necessarily
something else and more than “mere” toleration, since toleration is premised on a
negative attitude to and only permits the presence of difference, whereas
multiculturalism welcomes, recognises and accommodates diversity (Lægaard,
2013a). For present purposes I will not go much into this general debate at the
conceptual level. I will rather lay out my idea of Euro-multiculturalism and rely on
my characterisation of it to make evident that multiculturalism in this sense can
involve issues of toleration. Furthermore I will use the concept of toleration as a
prism though which to view understandings of multiculturalism. The idea is that the
concept of toleration picks out a number of important aspects of how one can relate to
diversity and provides a framework for distinguishing between different attitudes to
diversity. Viewing Euro-multiculturalism through the prism of toleration therefore
provides a way of identifying and explicating the peculiar ways in which Euro-
multiculturalism is a different way of relating to diversity.
1I originally introduced the idea of Euro-Multiculturalism in Lægaard (2012) as a label for a
specific family of normative political views, which I assumed included a specific idea about the
significance of context.
EURO-MULTICULTURALISM AND TOLERATION
Journal of East-West Thought
The paper proceeds as follows: First I lay out the concept of toleration and
explains how I will use this as a framework for assessing the specificity of Euro-
multiculturalism. Then I turn to the two respects in which Euro-multiculturalism
differs from other understandings of multiculturalism, namely the kind of diversity it
is concerned with and the types of responses to diversity that count as multicultural.
Then I discuss the two noted objections to Euro-multiculturalism that target precisely
these two aspects. In the conclusion I return to the link between toleration and
multiculturalism and discuss how Euro-multiculturalism involves toleration.
II. Toleration and Multiculturalism
Toleration is routinely defined as a specific relationship between agents and patients
of toleration where the following conditions hold: 1) there is some difference between
the agent and the patient, e.g. in terms of religious belief, cultural practices or visible
traits, 2) the agent has some sort of objection to the respects in which the patient
differs from the agent, which disposes the agent to interfere with the patient in order
to prohibit, suppress, exclude or eradicate what is found objectionable, 3) the agent
has the power to interfere in this way, 4) the agent also has other reasons for
nevertheless accepting the patient, and 5) the agent therefore does not interfere
(McKinnon, 2006; Forst, 2012; Cohen, 2014).
This general concept can be cashed out in many different ways. The agent can be
an individual, a group or an institution, as long as it is capable of action and of
fulfilling the objection and acceptance conditions in a relevant way (Lægaard,
2013b). ). The objection components can be understood in different ways – as
affective dislike or as more reasoned disapproval (Horton, 1996), which can in turn
either be based on particular conceptions of the good (ethical disapproval) or on
moral grounds supposedly valid for everybody (moral disapproval) (Forst, 2012).
The link between toleration and multiculturalism initially has to do with the
difference condition of toleration. Toleration requires the existence of some form of
difference, and this is exactly what multiculturalism is about. But as soon as this has
been stated, it is necessary to specify the understanding of multiculturalism – for what
are the differences that multiculturalism is concerned with? Exactly which forms of
diversity are we talking about, when we talk about multiculturalism? This is an
important question in its own right, because it requires us to reflect on the
understanding of multiculturalism and on what our use of the term refers to in
particular cases. It might be thought that the answer is straightforward; since ‘culture’
is part of the word multiculturalism, it seems obvious that multiculturalism is about
cultural differences. This is indeed (part of) many common definitions of
multiculturalism. I will nevertheless argue that the answer to this question is not as
straightforward as one might think, and that the answer is importantly different in
contemporary European cases as compared with, say, the classic Canadian cases. The
perspective provided by the concept of toleration is a good way of bringing this out,
since toleration is not just about difference but about differences that are objected to.
If the types of differences involved in multiculturalism are not the same in Euro-
40 SUNE LÆGAARD
Journal of East-West Thought
multiculturalism as in other cases, the kind of toleration might also be different, since
the kind of objection is likely to depend on the type of difference that the objection
takes as its object.
So in the following I will focus on the understanding of multiculturalism in the
European context and first ask what kind of difference and diversity Euro-
multiculturalism is concerned with. But multiculturalism is of course not just a
descriptive claim about the fact that societies are diverse; it is also a normative claim
about how societies should respond to this diversity. Toleration is one possible
response to diversity, but multiculturalism has often been understood as something
“beyond” mere toleration (Lægaard, 2013a). So there might be a divergence between
toleration and multiculturalism in terms of the types of action required in relation to
difference. In this paper I will only touch on a particular corner of this debate,
concerning what kinds of policy responses to diversity count as multicultural. I will
again note a common understanding, namely that multiculturalism is about policies
that go “beyond” toleration and ordinary liberal rights, and again I will argue that this
answer is not entirely true – and that in the European context it is even further from
the truth than it might be in other cases.
III. The Object of Euro-multiculturalism
A standard distinction in discussions about multiculturalism is between
multiculturalism as a descriptive and a normative claim. The descriptive claim is that
a given society is diverse in some sense, usually that there are groups with different
cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds. The normative claim is that this diversity
should be accommodated, recognised and supported in various ways. As Koopmans
(2013, 149) notes, most discussions of multiculturalism, at least in political
philosophy, proceed quickly to discuss the normative sense of multiculturalism. But
as Koopmans points out, the descriptive sense is quite important and should not be
neglected, since the type of diversity in question is important for understanding the
emergence and development of multiculturalism policies and the associated
controversies. Koopmans makes this as an empirical and explanatory claim. In this
paper I will argue that it also holds as a conceptual point. This is the case because
multiculturalism, even in the normative sense, is about how we should respond to
diversity – and the type of diversity therefore obviously makes an important
difference for what the appropriate normative response is.
So what kind of diversity is multiculturalism about? The word of course suggests
that multiculturalism is about culturally distinct groups. That is true to some extent,
but even when it is true, it does not say much. Everything turns on the kinds of
cultural differences that are taken to be relevant for multiculturalism. Roughly, it is
fair to say that the classic multicultural cases in North America “culture” denotes
features distinguishing groups in terms of 1) distinct language, and 2) specific
territory (Meer and Modood, 2012, 179). These groups then fall in two main
categories (cf. the classic typology in Kymlicka, 1995), namely a) indigenous peoples
such as Inuit and American Indians, and b) national minorities like the Quebecois.
EURO-MULTICULTURALISM AND TOLERATION
Journal of East-West Thought
Against this standard understanding of the kind of diversity relevant to
multiculturalism, Euro-multiculturalism is clearly different. Regarding the second
criterion, namely the territorial nature of the groups in question, this is different in
Europe. The groups in question are in general not territorially concentrated groups for
the simple reason that they are due to immigration and are not indigenous. Of course,
there are some indigenous peoples in Europe, such as the Sami in Northern
Scandinavia, and many national minorities, such as the Catalans and Scots. But the
latter are simply not discussed under the heading of multiculturalism; these cases are
rather categorised and debated under the heading of nationalism and the questions at
stake do not mainly concern cultural accommodations but self-determination and
secession. Perhaps apart from the case of the Sami, and that of the Roma, which is
arguably sui generis, all European debates about multiculturalism concern immigrant
groups which have arrived after the Second World War, first due to recruitment of
labour migrants, and after the oil crisis of the early seventies as refugees and through
family reunifications. Most of these immigrants and their descendants are
concentrated in urban areas, but the nature of the associated political problems and
claims is not territorial.
Regarding the first criterion, that of language, most immigrants are of course
linguistically distinct from the majority population of the European societies in which
they live. And language is sometimes used as a practical criterion to delimit the
groups in question. In Denmark the official label for immigrant groups discussed
under the heading of multiculturalism in relation to the educational system is for
instance “bi-lingual” – but this is arguably most often merely a proxy for underlying
group differentiations in terms of ethnicity or religion, which are ruled out (e.g. due to
non-discrimination rules prohibiting differential treatment based on ethnicity) or
provide seemingly more relevant justifications for certain policies, e.g. requirements
of compulsory dispersal of children with immigrant background across different
school districts to avoid too large concentrations. Some of the multiculturalist policies
under discussion in Europe, such as public support for mother tongue instruction in
public schools, also concern language, but these are relatively marginal cases.
The predominant focus of Euro-multiculturalism is not on questions of language,
but on culture in another sense, namely as traditions, e.g. forms of dress, supposed
underlying values, e.g. views about gender roles and family, and practices, e.g. of
Halal butchering. And these issues are increasingly framed as a matter of religion,
either directly as religiously justified claims, or indirectly as associated with groups
that are identified in religious terms, mainly as Muslims. In fact, in many European
countries, multiculturalism is primarily a label for debates about integration of
Muslims (Triandafyllidou, Modood and Zapata-Barrero, 2006, 1; Meer and Modood,
2012, 179; Triandafyllidou, Modood and Meer, 2012, 5-8, 12). So the kind of
diversity that Euro-multiculturalism is about is mainly religiously defined.
This is merely an empirical observation of what the debates and issues that are
labelled multicultural in Europe are about. As such one might be sceptical about my
claim that Euro-multiculturalism is about religion. This might be thought to be a case
of turning a rhetorical framing at the level of categories of practice into a theoretical
claim, which fails to appreciate political actors’ interests in describing issues in these
42 SUNE LÆGAARD
Journal of East-West Thought
terms (Werbner, 2012, 202). But according to Koopmans, the mainly religious object
of Euro-multiculturalism can be empirically confirmed. He cites data to show that
most immigrant claims were made by non-Christian religious groups, the majority of
which by Muslims, who can furthermore be shown to be by far the most likely group
to make claims for multicultural rights (Koopmans, 2013, 151). And as already noted,
many scholars of multiculturalism in Europe affirm the same general view that Euro-
multiculturalism is mainly about religious diversity due to immigration, and in
practice especially Muslims. But while this is a contingent empirical development,
not in itself a conceptual necessity, it nevertheless becomes relevant to the concept of
Euro-multiculturalism if we accept that the kind of diversity at stake is relevant to the
normative responses to diversity, to which I now turn.
IV. What Counts as Multiculturalism?
Given that multiculturalism is a response to a certain kind of diversity, what does this
response consist in and is Euro-multiculturalism in any way distinctive in this respect?
One common understanding of multiculturalism is that a) it consists in adopting
group-differentiated policies, e.g. in the form of group rights or recognition of
collectives, and that b) multiculturalism therefore is different from or moves beyond
standard liberal principles, which are assumed only to be concerned with individuals
as equal citizens.
This standard understanding of multiculturalism (made prominent by Kymlicka,
1995) has also been invoked in a European context. Here, multiculturalism has for
instance been said to denote a “communitarian form of organization of immigrant
populations around a common nationality or religion (or both) and the accompanying
demand for their specific voices in the public sphere” (Kastoryano, 2009, 5). It is
probably true that this is indeed a widespread popular understanding of the word
multiculturalism in Europe. And it is certainly this understanding that is often invoked
as a justification for hostility to multiculturalism, be it from French republicans
opposed to any form of communitarianism (as discussed in Laborde, 2008), or from
liberals concerned with how group-differentiated policies might undermine liberal
equality (e.g. Barry, 2001). Such debates proceed on the assumption that
multiculturalism is a fundamental challenge to or departure from the established
liberal (or republican) conception of equal citizenship (Triandafyllidou, Modood and
Zapata-Barrero, 2006, 4-5).
Most avowed multiculturalists of course deny that multiculturalism is
incompatible with equal citizenship – they rather argue that some form of group-
differentiated rights or similar special measures going beyond the standard uniform
set of individual rights and duties is necessary to actually treat all citizens equally, e.g.
because members of minorities face special burdens due to the inevitable non-
neutrality of even liberal states (Kymlicka, 1995; Modood, 2007). But even
proponents of this normative compatibility between multiculturalism and liberalism
still assume that what characterises multiculturalism as a policy response to diversity
is that multiculturalism policies somehow “go beyond the protection of the basic civil
and political rights guaranteed to all individuals in a liberal democratic state”, such as
EURO-MULTICULTURALISM AND TOLERATION
equal basic rights and non-discrimination measures (Banting and Kymlicka, 2013,
582; Koopmans, 2013, 151).
If one is interested in sketching the contours of Euro-multiculturalism, there are
two problems with this standard understanding of what multiculturalism consists in.
On the one hand, it is clear that there are very few (and, in a range of European
countries, not any) European policies concerning immigrant religious minorities that
really live up to this definition of multiculturalism. On the other hand it is simply not
clear that multiculturalism necessarily is about group-differentiated policies that
somehow go beyond standard liberal rights and principles. To illustrate these two
points, consider Banting and Kymlicka’s multiculturalism policy index, which is a
prominent measure for the extent to which states have instituted multiculturalism at
the policy level (Banting and Kymlicka, 2013). Even in the part of the MCP index
concerned with immigrant minorities, most European states score significantly lower
than the…
I. Introduction
Multiculturalism has for several decades been an unavoidable term in discussions
about social developments in modern societies. The increasing diversity of all
societies is an incontrovertible fact. This has led to extensive discussions about all the
issues this raises – both in terms of new possibilities and opportunities, but mainly in
terms of the problems, threats, risks and challenges posed by the increased presence
of people of different backgrounds side by side in the same society. While this
phenomenon is not new – the idea of a completely homogenous society is most
probably a fiction which very few historical societies have ever realised or even
approximated – it is generally accepted that diversity has recently increased due to
globalisation and migration. This has occurred in a context with increased awareness,
public scrutiny and politicisation of diversity. Simultaneously, the political human
rights context now rules out traditional ways of ignoring or oppressing diversity and
rather provides an arena for claims of accommodation, and a normative background
of ideas providing support for such claims.
The term “multiculturalism” has since the 60s and 70s risen to prominence as a
label for both diversity itself and for the social and political responses to it. But due to
the high degree of politicisation of all issues having to do with diversity, the word
“multiculturalism” is arguably often more a category of political practice than an
analytical category with a clear theoretical meaning (Brubaker and Cooper, 2000) – to
some, multiculturalism is simply a label for dangerous and subversive social
tendencies to be avoided and combatted at all costs, to others multiculturalism signal
a stand against xenophobia and an expression of a progressive attitude. The use of the
term in academic discussions therefore requires careful consideration of what the
underlying concepts really are and explicit definitions of how the term is used in
particular cases. But once you engage in this sort of exercise, it becomes apparent that,
even in academic and theoretical contexts, there are different understandings of
multiculturalism at play and that some of these are often not well captured by
generally accepted and reiterated definitions of multiculturalism.
In this paper I will show this with respect to the understanding of
multiculturalism in a European context. My claim will be that the underlying concept
of multiculturalism in many European discussions is different from that made
prominent by the classic cases, e.g. in Canada, that have functioned as paradigm cases
which the most prominent theories of multiculturalism have been tailored to fit and
justify. Hence my proposal that we should be aware of the existence of what I propose
to call “Euro-multiculturalism”, which both denotes a) a different object of debates,
Dr. SUNE LÆGAARD, Associate Professor in Philosophy and Science Studies,
Department of Culture and Identity, Roskilde University.
38 SUNE LÆGAARD
Journal of East-West Thought
i.e. the kind of diversity that multiculturalism is about, b) a different definition of
what counts as multiculturalism policy responses to this diversity, and c) a different
normative background explaining what is at stake in European multiculturalism
controversies. Briefly, my suggestion is that Euro-multiculturalism is a) about mainly
immigrant religious minorities rather than indigenous or national minorities defined
in mainly cultural or linguistic terms; b) does not for the most part consist in special
group-differentiated rights or forms of recognition going beyond established liberal
rights, but rather is concerned with the interpretation and application of standard
liberal rights and rules to cases involving this new diversity; and c) should be
understood as premised on an underlying discussion about the meaning of liberalism
rather than as a debate about normative commitments fundamentally different from
liberalism. 1 I will illustrate these points and provide some arguments for them. But most of
this paper will consider some possible objections to my proposed understanding of
Euro-multiculturalism, namely a) that it over-inclusive in the sense that it includes
religion as a central category and thereby neglects important differences between
religion and culture, and b) that it is under-inclusive in the sense that it collapses
multiculturalism into standard liberal political theory and fails to explain what is
distinctive about multiculturalism. Roughly my answer to these objections will be that
they are premised on a specific understanding of multiculturalism that both
misunderstands the internal logic of many classical forms of multiculturalism and
fails to capture what goes under the name of multiculturalism in a European context.
Multiculturalism is about diversity and is highly politicised in the sense that the
diversity in question generates much controversy and opposition. This combination
makes salient the other concept in the title of the paper, namely toleration. There are
many discussions of toleration and multiculturalism at the general conceptual level,
where it is often argued that multiculturalism as a response to diversity is necessarily
something else and more than “mere” toleration, since toleration is premised on a
negative attitude to and only permits the presence of difference, whereas
multiculturalism welcomes, recognises and accommodates diversity (Lægaard,
2013a). For present purposes I will not go much into this general debate at the
conceptual level. I will rather lay out my idea of Euro-multiculturalism and rely on
my characterisation of it to make evident that multiculturalism in this sense can
involve issues of toleration. Furthermore I will use the concept of toleration as a
prism though which to view understandings of multiculturalism. The idea is that the
concept of toleration picks out a number of important aspects of how one can relate to
diversity and provides a framework for distinguishing between different attitudes to
diversity. Viewing Euro-multiculturalism through the prism of toleration therefore
provides a way of identifying and explicating the peculiar ways in which Euro-
multiculturalism is a different way of relating to diversity.
1I originally introduced the idea of Euro-Multiculturalism in Lægaard (2012) as a label for a
specific family of normative political views, which I assumed included a specific idea about the
significance of context.
EURO-MULTICULTURALISM AND TOLERATION
Journal of East-West Thought
The paper proceeds as follows: First I lay out the concept of toleration and
explains how I will use this as a framework for assessing the specificity of Euro-
multiculturalism. Then I turn to the two respects in which Euro-multiculturalism
differs from other understandings of multiculturalism, namely the kind of diversity it
is concerned with and the types of responses to diversity that count as multicultural.
Then I discuss the two noted objections to Euro-multiculturalism that target precisely
these two aspects. In the conclusion I return to the link between toleration and
multiculturalism and discuss how Euro-multiculturalism involves toleration.
II. Toleration and Multiculturalism
Toleration is routinely defined as a specific relationship between agents and patients
of toleration where the following conditions hold: 1) there is some difference between
the agent and the patient, e.g. in terms of religious belief, cultural practices or visible
traits, 2) the agent has some sort of objection to the respects in which the patient
differs from the agent, which disposes the agent to interfere with the patient in order
to prohibit, suppress, exclude or eradicate what is found objectionable, 3) the agent
has the power to interfere in this way, 4) the agent also has other reasons for
nevertheless accepting the patient, and 5) the agent therefore does not interfere
(McKinnon, 2006; Forst, 2012; Cohen, 2014).
This general concept can be cashed out in many different ways. The agent can be
an individual, a group or an institution, as long as it is capable of action and of
fulfilling the objection and acceptance conditions in a relevant way (Lægaard,
2013b). ). The objection components can be understood in different ways – as
affective dislike or as more reasoned disapproval (Horton, 1996), which can in turn
either be based on particular conceptions of the good (ethical disapproval) or on
moral grounds supposedly valid for everybody (moral disapproval) (Forst, 2012).
The link between toleration and multiculturalism initially has to do with the
difference condition of toleration. Toleration requires the existence of some form of
difference, and this is exactly what multiculturalism is about. But as soon as this has
been stated, it is necessary to specify the understanding of multiculturalism – for what
are the differences that multiculturalism is concerned with? Exactly which forms of
diversity are we talking about, when we talk about multiculturalism? This is an
important question in its own right, because it requires us to reflect on the
understanding of multiculturalism and on what our use of the term refers to in
particular cases. It might be thought that the answer is straightforward; since ‘culture’
is part of the word multiculturalism, it seems obvious that multiculturalism is about
cultural differences. This is indeed (part of) many common definitions of
multiculturalism. I will nevertheless argue that the answer to this question is not as
straightforward as one might think, and that the answer is importantly different in
contemporary European cases as compared with, say, the classic Canadian cases. The
perspective provided by the concept of toleration is a good way of bringing this out,
since toleration is not just about difference but about differences that are objected to.
If the types of differences involved in multiculturalism are not the same in Euro-
40 SUNE LÆGAARD
Journal of East-West Thought
multiculturalism as in other cases, the kind of toleration might also be different, since
the kind of objection is likely to depend on the type of difference that the objection
takes as its object.
So in the following I will focus on the understanding of multiculturalism in the
European context and first ask what kind of difference and diversity Euro-
multiculturalism is concerned with. But multiculturalism is of course not just a
descriptive claim about the fact that societies are diverse; it is also a normative claim
about how societies should respond to this diversity. Toleration is one possible
response to diversity, but multiculturalism has often been understood as something
“beyond” mere toleration (Lægaard, 2013a). So there might be a divergence between
toleration and multiculturalism in terms of the types of action required in relation to
difference. In this paper I will only touch on a particular corner of this debate,
concerning what kinds of policy responses to diversity count as multicultural. I will
again note a common understanding, namely that multiculturalism is about policies
that go “beyond” toleration and ordinary liberal rights, and again I will argue that this
answer is not entirely true – and that in the European context it is even further from
the truth than it might be in other cases.
III. The Object of Euro-multiculturalism
A standard distinction in discussions about multiculturalism is between
multiculturalism as a descriptive and a normative claim. The descriptive claim is that
a given society is diverse in some sense, usually that there are groups with different
cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds. The normative claim is that this diversity
should be accommodated, recognised and supported in various ways. As Koopmans
(2013, 149) notes, most discussions of multiculturalism, at least in political
philosophy, proceed quickly to discuss the normative sense of multiculturalism. But
as Koopmans points out, the descriptive sense is quite important and should not be
neglected, since the type of diversity in question is important for understanding the
emergence and development of multiculturalism policies and the associated
controversies. Koopmans makes this as an empirical and explanatory claim. In this
paper I will argue that it also holds as a conceptual point. This is the case because
multiculturalism, even in the normative sense, is about how we should respond to
diversity – and the type of diversity therefore obviously makes an important
difference for what the appropriate normative response is.
So what kind of diversity is multiculturalism about? The word of course suggests
that multiculturalism is about culturally distinct groups. That is true to some extent,
but even when it is true, it does not say much. Everything turns on the kinds of
cultural differences that are taken to be relevant for multiculturalism. Roughly, it is
fair to say that the classic multicultural cases in North America “culture” denotes
features distinguishing groups in terms of 1) distinct language, and 2) specific
territory (Meer and Modood, 2012, 179). These groups then fall in two main
categories (cf. the classic typology in Kymlicka, 1995), namely a) indigenous peoples
such as Inuit and American Indians, and b) national minorities like the Quebecois.
EURO-MULTICULTURALISM AND TOLERATION
Journal of East-West Thought
Against this standard understanding of the kind of diversity relevant to
multiculturalism, Euro-multiculturalism is clearly different. Regarding the second
criterion, namely the territorial nature of the groups in question, this is different in
Europe. The groups in question are in general not territorially concentrated groups for
the simple reason that they are due to immigration and are not indigenous. Of course,
there are some indigenous peoples in Europe, such as the Sami in Northern
Scandinavia, and many national minorities, such as the Catalans and Scots. But the
latter are simply not discussed under the heading of multiculturalism; these cases are
rather categorised and debated under the heading of nationalism and the questions at
stake do not mainly concern cultural accommodations but self-determination and
secession. Perhaps apart from the case of the Sami, and that of the Roma, which is
arguably sui generis, all European debates about multiculturalism concern immigrant
groups which have arrived after the Second World War, first due to recruitment of
labour migrants, and after the oil crisis of the early seventies as refugees and through
family reunifications. Most of these immigrants and their descendants are
concentrated in urban areas, but the nature of the associated political problems and
claims is not territorial.
Regarding the first criterion, that of language, most immigrants are of course
linguistically distinct from the majority population of the European societies in which
they live. And language is sometimes used as a practical criterion to delimit the
groups in question. In Denmark the official label for immigrant groups discussed
under the heading of multiculturalism in relation to the educational system is for
instance “bi-lingual” – but this is arguably most often merely a proxy for underlying
group differentiations in terms of ethnicity or religion, which are ruled out (e.g. due to
non-discrimination rules prohibiting differential treatment based on ethnicity) or
provide seemingly more relevant justifications for certain policies, e.g. requirements
of compulsory dispersal of children with immigrant background across different
school districts to avoid too large concentrations. Some of the multiculturalist policies
under discussion in Europe, such as public support for mother tongue instruction in
public schools, also concern language, but these are relatively marginal cases.
The predominant focus of Euro-multiculturalism is not on questions of language,
but on culture in another sense, namely as traditions, e.g. forms of dress, supposed
underlying values, e.g. views about gender roles and family, and practices, e.g. of
Halal butchering. And these issues are increasingly framed as a matter of religion,
either directly as religiously justified claims, or indirectly as associated with groups
that are identified in religious terms, mainly as Muslims. In fact, in many European
countries, multiculturalism is primarily a label for debates about integration of
Muslims (Triandafyllidou, Modood and Zapata-Barrero, 2006, 1; Meer and Modood,
2012, 179; Triandafyllidou, Modood and Meer, 2012, 5-8, 12). So the kind of
diversity that Euro-multiculturalism is about is mainly religiously defined.
This is merely an empirical observation of what the debates and issues that are
labelled multicultural in Europe are about. As such one might be sceptical about my
claim that Euro-multiculturalism is about religion. This might be thought to be a case
of turning a rhetorical framing at the level of categories of practice into a theoretical
claim, which fails to appreciate political actors’ interests in describing issues in these
42 SUNE LÆGAARD
Journal of East-West Thought
terms (Werbner, 2012, 202). But according to Koopmans, the mainly religious object
of Euro-multiculturalism can be empirically confirmed. He cites data to show that
most immigrant claims were made by non-Christian religious groups, the majority of
which by Muslims, who can furthermore be shown to be by far the most likely group
to make claims for multicultural rights (Koopmans, 2013, 151). And as already noted,
many scholars of multiculturalism in Europe affirm the same general view that Euro-
multiculturalism is mainly about religious diversity due to immigration, and in
practice especially Muslims. But while this is a contingent empirical development,
not in itself a conceptual necessity, it nevertheless becomes relevant to the concept of
Euro-multiculturalism if we accept that the kind of diversity at stake is relevant to the
normative responses to diversity, to which I now turn.
IV. What Counts as Multiculturalism?
Given that multiculturalism is a response to a certain kind of diversity, what does this
response consist in and is Euro-multiculturalism in any way distinctive in this respect?
One common understanding of multiculturalism is that a) it consists in adopting
group-differentiated policies, e.g. in the form of group rights or recognition of
collectives, and that b) multiculturalism therefore is different from or moves beyond
standard liberal principles, which are assumed only to be concerned with individuals
as equal citizens.
This standard understanding of multiculturalism (made prominent by Kymlicka,
1995) has also been invoked in a European context. Here, multiculturalism has for
instance been said to denote a “communitarian form of organization of immigrant
populations around a common nationality or religion (or both) and the accompanying
demand for their specific voices in the public sphere” (Kastoryano, 2009, 5). It is
probably true that this is indeed a widespread popular understanding of the word
multiculturalism in Europe. And it is certainly this understanding that is often invoked
as a justification for hostility to multiculturalism, be it from French republicans
opposed to any form of communitarianism (as discussed in Laborde, 2008), or from
liberals concerned with how group-differentiated policies might undermine liberal
equality (e.g. Barry, 2001). Such debates proceed on the assumption that
multiculturalism is a fundamental challenge to or departure from the established
liberal (or republican) conception of equal citizenship (Triandafyllidou, Modood and
Zapata-Barrero, 2006, 4-5).
Most avowed multiculturalists of course deny that multiculturalism is
incompatible with equal citizenship – they rather argue that some form of group-
differentiated rights or similar special measures going beyond the standard uniform
set of individual rights and duties is necessary to actually treat all citizens equally, e.g.
because members of minorities face special burdens due to the inevitable non-
neutrality of even liberal states (Kymlicka, 1995; Modood, 2007). But even
proponents of this normative compatibility between multiculturalism and liberalism
still assume that what characterises multiculturalism as a policy response to diversity
is that multiculturalism policies somehow “go beyond the protection of the basic civil
and political rights guaranteed to all individuals in a liberal democratic state”, such as
EURO-MULTICULTURALISM AND TOLERATION
equal basic rights and non-discrimination measures (Banting and Kymlicka, 2013,
582; Koopmans, 2013, 151).
If one is interested in sketching the contours of Euro-multiculturalism, there are
two problems with this standard understanding of what multiculturalism consists in.
On the one hand, it is clear that there are very few (and, in a range of European
countries, not any) European policies concerning immigrant religious minorities that
really live up to this definition of multiculturalism. On the other hand it is simply not
clear that multiculturalism necessarily is about group-differentiated policies that
somehow go beyond standard liberal rights and principles. To illustrate these two
points, consider Banting and Kymlicka’s multiculturalism policy index, which is a
prominent measure for the extent to which states have instituted multiculturalism at
the policy level (Banting and Kymlicka, 2013). Even in the part of the MCP index
concerned with immigrant minorities, most European states score significantly lower
than the…
Related Documents
